5 lies your nutritionist likes to tell you I have to admit that I like to tease my fellow nutritionists, particularly those who promote fad diets or claim unsubstantiated nutritional advice. Therefore, I have collected some of the “lies” that many of us (either ingenuously or in good faith) like to tell people. 1. Protein from dairy products can cause bone decalcification. I have read this so many times: protein from dairy and animal foods makes the blood more acidic and facilitates the release of calcium from bones and its excretion in the urine. Get updated, guys! As I have already highlighted in this article here, this theory has been disproved by studies using calcium isotopes. They showed not only that the calcium from dairy is absorbed, but also that its increased concentration in the urine of those who eat dairy is a direct consequence of the greater calcium concentration in their body[1]. 2. Large, rapid weight loss is associated with poorer long-term weight outcomes than slow, gradual weight loss. In a recent interesting review that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine[2], Krista Casazza disproves the common belief that losing weight slowly is better for obesity prevention. Indeed, within weight-loss trials, more rapid and greater initial weight loss predicted lower body weight at the end of a long-term follow-up [3], [4]. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of a rapid weight loss (by very low energy regimens) with a slower weight loss found no significant difference between the two regimens with respect to weight loss at the long-term follow-up4. Although it is not clear why some obese persons have a greater initial weight loss than others, the recommendation to lose weight slowly to obtain a greater and more sustained weight loss cannot be scientifically supported. It seems more aimed to keep people consistently coming to the nutritionist’s office for as long as possible! 3. Many reliable tests can detect food intolerances. Adverse food reactions that cannot be explained by routine allergy tests and that aren’t categorized as celiac disease or lactose intolerance are generally named “food intolerances.” The problem is that there is no valid test for their diagnosis. In spite of this fact, a huge business of unconventional tests has been growing, and many companies claim their tests can help people find those specific foods causing them trouble. This is absolutely only a commercial gimmick, and these tests should be avoided. A recommended reading on this topic is the article published by the Australian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA) on its website. It lists inappropriate food intolerance testing, inappropriate use of conventional testing as well as inappropriate or unorthodox use of treatments. 4. Nutritional supplements can protect against cancer risk. Nutritional supplements are another huge business making the hidden dream of the pharmaceutical industries come true: i.e., getting clients out of not only sick people, but also (and particularly) healthy ones. Supplements are considered to be “foods” by the European legislations[5]; however, I think they should be instead be considered pharmaceutical products. Particularly, the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) stated, after the publication of a report summarizing an extensive literature search on the scientific evidence on diet and cancer, that supplements do not protect against cancer. Not only that, but at high doses, they can even increase the risk of getting this terrible disease. This to me is enough to recommend using them only in the presence of proved nutritional deficiencies. 5. Plant antioxidants are Mother Nature’s drug cabinet. Directly connected to the previous topic, the antioxidant theory has been reiterated by almost all nutritionists. However, there are reasons to believe that this theory is flawed, and the conviction that antioxidants have several beneficial health effects should be reconsidered. In particular, the most important faults of this theory[6] are: 1. The use of supplements for the prevention of cancer is not recommended by the WCRF (see above). Some supplements that contain antioxidants (like carotenoids) have instead demonstrated the ability to increase cancer risk in some people (e.g., smokers). 2. The concentration of antioxidants from food reaches very low levels in the organism—much lower than natural antioxidants, such as glutathione. 3. In the specific case of flavonoids, their intestinal absorption has been shown to be very low, and the blood concentration is made even lower by their metabolization. 4. The increase in the antioxidant ability of blood after an antioxidant-rich meal seems to be mostly due to an increase in urate levels, a substance whose production is stimulated by some sugars contained in fruits and vegetables. 5. Not all oxidative processes in organisms cause damage. Some of them might be a way healthy cells communicate with each other or a mechanism to destroy cancer or virus-infected cells. Based on the above, why should we increase our antioxidant intake? Conclusion Confused? I hope not, and I invite my fellow nutritionists to read this piece and provide me with their comments or critiques. Use the box below to post your observations!
Posted on: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:09:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015